Education Is Like A Dysfunctional Family

I'm probably wrong, but bear with me as out outline all of my errors for you.

Over the last two decades I've seen student performance noticeably decline. Students fear math. Not calculus, but merely simple multiplication and division. Ask any student to calculate a percentage, i.e. "The population of the United States is 310,000,000 people. Kentucky has a population of 4 million people. What percent of the U.S. population lives in Kentucky?"

We can estimate an answer very quickly. Thirty-one million is 10%, and 3.1 million is 1%, and each 0.1% is about 310,000 people. We can then say 310,000 x 3 = almost 1 million people. If 1% is 3 million people and 0.3 is one million people, then 1.3% is about 4 million people. Finally, we can say the population of Kentucky represents about 1.3% of the total United States population.

But, I teach geography and use numbers like this all the time. My students examine demographics of countries, statistics like death rates and birth rates, literacy rates, and labor force participation rates, and HIV/AIDS prevalence. People need to understand simple ratios in everyday life, though, for doing simple things like calculating gratuities, or figuring out how much our discount at JCPenny's is going to save us.

More importantly, as our politicians increasingly take advantage of the growing apathy, or ignorance, of U.S. citizens while leveraging differences in religion income between neighbors, we need every advantage to overcome egregious misinformation by our politicians and their media minions.

The majority of students in my courses fall into one of two categories. As one might guess, most of my students are early academic career Freshman or Sophomores, not long from high school. I also have several adults "back in college." I have also been an instructor at three community colleges. Community colleges may lack cultural diversity, but what they lack in cultural diversity, they more than compensate by having vast socioeconomic diversity. I have had grandmothers with zero college experience to career professionals in my world geography courses, true freshman right from high school to people straight from military service to people retraining due to job loss or wanting a promotion.

This fall, I have roughly 70 students. This is a light semester; a typical semester is twice this number. All of my courses include numerous writing assignments, usually 4-5 essays. The vast majority of essays have fundamental structural problems. Paragraph indents either do not exist or are too large, e.g. 1" indents. Few students spell-check. The use of sentence fragments in place of a proper sentence is common. Most student cannot effectively communicate using examples even after being told to use "people, places, things, and ideas" mentioned in the podcast or video. Many writing assignments simply end, stop without completely discussing the material, or providing a summary. The writing is crude, lacking a range of vocabulary, attention to details, and organization. Essentially what students are submitting as final drafts of writing assignments I consider to be drafts which never should be submitted.

In the last year, I've argued with an assistant principal at a local high school and have caught two Education student blatantly plagarising. A close friend of mine, working on her education degree has encountered numerous peers who lie, cheat, plagiarise, and have a work ethic not suitable for a person choosing a career in education. In the case of the assistant principal, she did not understand plagiarism. Each semester, I have 6-20 high school students taking my college courses. The assistance principal supervised one of these students, and helped her with her writing assignments. Each writing assignment the student submitted was completely plagiarised, coming from newspaper articles, from Time or Newsweek articles, or from web sites. She offered no links, no "Works Cited," no "Reference," and no footnotes. I found the plagiarism by googling selected sentences. With each submission, the student received a zero and a warning.

On my 3rd warning (this is a high school student, so I was using these assignments as a teaching mechanism to showcase how not to plagiarise) her principal called me.

I don't understand how you can say she is plagiarizing, she declared. She is doing her own research! She shouldn't have to cite anything.

No, you are mistaken, I replied. Your student (and mine) is not doing research, she is doing reporting. She is researching a topic and reporting on the work of others. Because she is reporting on the work of others, she has to cite her articles properly using in-text citations with a Works Cited page. Even if she were conducting her own research, she would not being doing such research in a vacuum, she would be basing her research on the research of others. Therefore, she would still have to cite previous efforts. There is no way around this.

The assistant principal admitted she still didn't understand how the student could be plagiarising, as she had helped the student find her resources and read her essay. My response was rather blunt, that the reality was, the student needs to abide by the rules as stipulated within my syllabus and abide by the university's academic honesty policy - if she wants to continue in the course.

One of the education students I caught plagiarising told me I was the first professor to have caught her cheating in her two-plus years of college coursework. My close friend worked in a group with a fellow education student who professed to have never written an honest paper in his entire 4-year university career. He then went the following semester to begin his student teaching.

Several current student-teachers have indicated no willingness to take home assignments to grade, or to perform many of the extracurricular duties expected of K-12 teachers, such as being a club advisor for chess, speech and debate, or an assistant for a sport. A philosophy of not needing to know "more than a 4th grader because that's the highest grade I'm going teach" is pervasive.

Why do you need to know more than the kids you are teaching? The answer has little to do with the information being communicated to the child. The answer lies with opening and revealing a little more of the world to a young mind. I not saying someone has to be an expert in all fields; that simply impossible. A teacher, an educator, needs to appreciate the learning experience, and the revelations associated with exposing old knowledge to new minds.

A former student of mine is married to a 3rd-Grade teacher. She came home one day, exasperated. Her student-teacher refused to take home work to grade. To add insult to injury, she had asked her student-teacher to calculate the mean scores on some homework and compare those scores to a report.

"I'm not good at math," was the reply. "It's OK; it's 3rd grade math. You'll be fine."

Evidently, the results were calculated wrong and the classroom teacher had to re-work what amounted to figuring the mean grade. So, I see problems developing for higher education. I see problems which will be getting worse, not better. I see problems coming from high schools from the current students, teachers-to-be, and unfortunately, from the administrators. My friend working on her practicum teaching was placed in a classroom containing typical students, plus 6 students who spoke no English. Four of the students were Hispanic Spanish-speakers. Two of the students were from Somalia, by way of Iraq, by way of Louisiana.

"We don't even know where Somalia is. Is Somalia in Africa?" This from both the teachers and principals. "What language do Somalis speak?" OK, that one might qualify as a good question.

Yes, I see problems.

Today, on Twitter, I entered into a debate with an "education professional" who works at a large university in the Midwest. The topic was "Should remedial courses be taught at university?" I may have misunderstood her stance; at first, I thought she was advocating against teaching remedial courses at university.

Later, though, she evidently supported more professional development (PD) and modified tenure conditions for faculty in what I can only assume implies she is an advocate for an expansion of teaching remedial students in higher education. I have to assume because after I drew the analogy the conversation ended.

Teaching remedial courses at university is like trying to fire-fight a burning building while the arsonist is still running from floor-to-floor setting fires in the building. This was my analogy. We have to train people to live in a building which will catch fire on regular basis.

"Here is your fire extinguisher. You are responsible for putting out all fires on your floor. Maybe you can work with the other residents and develop a plan to put out fires. Even-numbered apartments might be the firefighters on M-W-F, odd-numbered apartments fight fires on T-Th-Sa. Ask for volunteers for Sunday."

Perhaps teaching remedial courses at university might be like fighting a forest fire while the ignorant campers are still moving from campsite to campsite creating fires. Either analogy pits a group attempting to stop damage against a group which is causing the circumstances to continue, either knowingly or through ignorance or apathy. But the firefighters job is folly when no effort is made to stop the arsonist or to track down the irresponsible campers, or the attempts to track down the the wrong-doers is haphazard. To take this analogy to the next level, the educator advocating expansion of remedial education at university is essentially advocating for people to get used to forest fires, arsonists, and irresponsible campers, and learn how to stomp out fires in addition to our other job duties. We must educate Forest Service employees and train them to get along with and accept irresponsible campers whose actions cause physical damage, monetary loss, and potentially loss of life.

Recently, a local school district bragged,

"We have 100% graduation from our high school. We received a bonus of $____."

This is not impossible. I do not doubt a few public school systems in the United States can make this claim. But, 100% has to be a rare situation. In Kentucky, for example, the drop-out age was recently raised from 16 to 17. Progress is being made. Socioeconomic situations vary greatly, as does parental supervision and support. Some high school students simply don't have familial support to make it through school. However, as in this case, students were forced from the high school rolls by assigning them to Alternative School. Also, there is some indication the rigors of high school, what rigors exist, have been eased.

Another local school district has a "Zero Senior-Year Homework" policy. Wouldn't that have been nice, not to have any homework our senior year of high school.

As states vie for more education funding, and states explore ways of creating incentives for schools to improve their "learning outcomes," I worry incentives merely inspire people to find creative measures to show improvement where no improvement really exists.

A second comment by the Twitter educator bothered me. I wonder, she stated, if your peers know about teaching to students at different levels [I paraphrase.]

The comment may seem rather innocuous, but I assure you, she has uttered a mouthful. In K-12, educators are instructed to evaluate students in their classroom, assess aptitude, more or less. Lower performing students may get a unique Individual Educational Program (IEP.) Today's classroom contain kids of all abilities. Today's classrooms may also have mentally handicapped students, a process known as "mainstreaming." Today's classrooms may also contain students who speak little to no English. Today's classroom may contain the next Richard Feynman, Elon Musk, or Caterina Fake.

Teaching to students at different levels? Seriously? I wanted to ask. University historically has not been about teaching students at different levels. University exists to further education and knowledge, to promote science, technology, engineering, mathematics, plus develop critical thinking skills, and fundamentally question our universe. Students are supposed to arrive from high school, or community college, with the fundamental skills necessary to move their intellect to the next level.

The earlier comment recommending expanding remedial services through professional development and modification of tenure to accommodate students who arrive lacking fundamental college skills in math and writing is ill-conceived, in my view. Vocational schools exist in nearly every school district in the United States. Vocational schools should be available and made attractive to people who would prefer to avoid college yet develop a career-oriented trade or skill.

Community colleges exist in every state in the United States. Community colleges exist to build or enhance skills in order to prepare for university. Community colleges also provide vocational schools and are retraining centers for people who have lost employment. A framework already exists to support people who neglected to take high school seriously, or who lacked appropriate high school education. Why do we need to re-build a wheel which was built-in the first place to serve primarily the same purpose as university-based remedial education?

In Kentucky, for instance, every public university is facing another round of budget cuts. A lower tax base and reduced revenues means lower state income, which translates into less available for higher education. Most Kentucky universities will lose another $2 million dollars, minimum. Every year since 2007, Kentucky universities have had their state apportionment reduced. No raises most years, not even COLA (cost of living allowance.) Computer labs are refreshed every 4-5 years. My computer labs operated for 9 years on the same computers, in spite of my pleas to chairs, directors, and deans for financial support.

I have been advocating for technology-lab fees for my area, and each time had them declined. Except this year, when I told my dean he should simply eliminate my department if he wasn't going to support my labs. How does one do GIS and remote sensing on 9-year old computers? Answer: rather shittily.

In the face of fewer and fewer education dollars available each year in Higher Education, how are universities going to be able to teach an increasing number of students in need of remedial education simply to get them to the point of being able to be accepted into university? Are we supposed to stop teaching our actual 100 and 200 level courses, our fundamentals courses, so we can teach students remedial courses just to prep them for our 100 and 200 level courses.

In a past post [here], I provided some anecdotal stories of statistics reported by regional news sources.

Next consider the statistics of incoming freshman students needing remedial courses prior to even enrolling in college. In 2010, the Fairbanks, AK Sun-Star reported “50% of incoming freshmen entering the UA system require at least one remedial course.” In 2011, the Columbus, OH Business Journal wrote, “the share of students under 20 needing remedial help has grown to 39 percent from 36 percent in the past five years, while that same measure for older students has grown to 46 percent from 40 percent.”

These remedial courses never count towards a degree, by the way, but they cost the same as a university course. This has the effect of increasing a student's student loan amounts. Depending on the student loan conditions, students may be limited by time and/or the number of hours the student can enroll. I have run across a few cases where students have run out of financial support early. Students are required to take remedial courses, then run out of loan support in their senior year because the loan agency imposes a limit on the total number of credit hours for which a student can request financial support. Sometimes, support ends after eight semesters (4 years). However, due to remedial courses, a 4-year program might become 4.5-5 years. The downstream effects have the effect of increasing the cost of Higher Education.

These remedial courses are simply an answer (not a good one, in my opinion) to correct a flawed education being promulgated in high schools.

• Should we not be working on improving high school education?
• Should we not be working on improving vocation schools across the country?
• Should we not be working on improving community college education and university transition programs?
• Should we not be focusing on those nodes within the currently existing national education framework and making sure those institutions are performing?
• Should we really build a new node-within-a-node to correct problems originating at lower educational levels?

To me, these questions sound reasonable, rational, and logical. What are the answers?

1. Audit every high school?
2. Audit students, the teachers, administrators, and curriculum?
3. Audit the environment, teacher morale, student attitudes and activities?
4. Audit parental attitudes, the neighborhood around the schools, and school district support?

A local high school, for instance, has too few teachers and more students than desks. Students sit on lab stools, 30-35 in a room, while other classrooms sit dormant, unused, due to a lack of teachers. Needless to say, that environment is good for no one. How adequate is that learning environment for building a 21st century knowledge base? I'm probably missing aspects to measure, assess, etc.

I sit chagrined when I read comments by people with Ph.D's in Education, Education Leadership, or Higher Education who purport to solve problems within the university. Having worked at university for 16 years and community college for 13 years, in rural Kentucky, many of their comments seem baseless and out-of-touch with reality. Many of these experts advocate "mainstreaming" all kids, putting kids of all abilities in the same classroom, yet developing lesson plans based on individual talent. One class may have 7 or more individual lesson plans based on the abilities of the kids in the room.

Why not simply create three or four general groups, place kids into a group which most closely represents the kid's ability. Do this for all the classes in a grade. Then, all kids in the Blue Group meet in a classroom, all kids in the Green Group meet in another classroom, and all kids in the Orange Group meet in a classroom. Then, a teacher can work with all kids of a certain ability. Teachers can rotate groups so no teacher has to work with the same group all the time.

I've proffered this idea to Ph.Ds and have been met with what I can only call derision.

"We can't separate kids based on skill. That's absurd. That is segregation. And segregation is bad."

Yes, segregation based on religion, or skin color, or sexuality, or gender is bad. Though, I do like having gender-segregated bathrooms. And, I am glad the Baptist, Lutherans, Methodists, and Catholics have their own places of worship. And, I do enjoy eating at restaurants which specialize in Japanese, Thai, Chinese, or Indian cuisine. I'm sure the people with handicapped tags enjoy having parking places closer to the front doors. I'm sure the little kids at the Burger King playground appreciate not having giant obese adults wrecking TubeTown. I'm sort of glad claustrophobic people and overweight people are discouraged from going on some of the Mammoth Cave tours. I remember driving a very small car and enjoying being able to park in the "compact car" spaces. But, I make too much money to be on Medicaid. I'm too young to take advantage of any AARP discount. I'm too pale for a McNair scholarship to work on a Ph.D, and I'm too clumsy to play professional basketball. Yeah, society is not segregated, not one bit ...

My bias comes from my experience in elementary school, junior high, and high school. My classmates and I were placed in groups according to ability. Three groups, numbered 1 to 3, into which kids were placed based on math and reading skills. Each group was given work according to their ability. Kids in each group were also given plenty of chances to improve and develop skills. We had 2 recesses per day, plus designated gym class, music and art. After school, we had "afterschool activities," a chance to stay after school and do homework, play on the playground, or do any number of activities. I don't remember any issues among my peers. I don't remember any bullying directed at kids in other groups.

To be sure, there was plenty of bullying. I was bullied for 3 straight years, from 4th grade to 7th. I played cello, was smart, and was a bit of a fighter, if someone pushed me, or my sister. My cello made me an easy mark, plus my mile-walk home. But, I don't remember kids picking on other kids for being in a different math or reading group. We all played together outside, ate in the cafeteria, and rode the same buses.

Perhaps my classmates felt stigma from being in other groups. If they did they never mentioned anything about it. We were all in school, faced with tasks, exercises, and homework. For most of the day, we were all together, except for math and reading, when we met with our assigned groups.

I know I personally felt some stigma in junior high and later in high school. Junior high stigma was felt after I missed being placed in a gifted group by literally 1 point. I scored a 94; the threshold was 95. Sorry, Michael, no soup for you!

Every time the bus for the "gifted" kids left, which literally contained 98% of my friends, they would also ask me why I wasn't on the bus. In high school, despite having the GPA, I was never approved for National Honor Society until my senior year, despite nominations. Years later, I would learn from one of my teachers I had angered two other teachers and therefore my NHS status was not approved until senior year. In the meantime, from freshman year through junior year, I had to deal with questions from my peers as to why I wasn't in Honor Society. Funny, as during my Senior year I was appointed "Most Scholarly" by my classmates for our yearbook.

Why did I call this post "Education is like a dysfunctional family?" I'm hoping what I have written has made my point for me without explicitly making my argument. But, education in the United States is like a dysfunctional family. Think about any episode of "Intervention" you've ever seen. One person clearly has a problem and is in complete denial about their problem. The family has members who help the person purchase drugs, or eat, or cover up thefts, or give them money, who keep the problem alive. Some family members try to get the addict help. Some family members refuse to interact with the addict. Everyone frets and all adjust their lives accordingly around the life of the addict. Eventually, some crisis occurs bringing action from all members and an outside therapist is brought in to evaluate the family.

I find considerable parallels can be drawn among the various education institution cohorts. Secondary education I would place in the role of the addict. State and Federal education agencies are other members of the family. The agencies might recognize a host of problems with secondary education. The agencies might fret and wring their hands, and try different tactics to coax better performance from high schools. Local school boards and site-based decision-making boards (SBDM) increase the size of our "dysfunctional family." These boards may also recognize problems, or may also be part of the co-dependency problem. They may think no problem exists where one actually does. For instance, school boards or SBDM boards who advocate non-science as science, such as the teaching of Intelligent Design, Creationism as Science, or climate change denial, or a Young Earth or any other biblical stories as science. To further the analogy, local high school administrators and teachers may scrub tests to improve test scores in order to gain more favor, i.e. money, from state and federal officials. Finally, we have serious issues in Higher Education Teacher Education which potentially promises an endless continuation of our dysfunctional family. More filtering of students is needed, more oversight is required, but faculty are overwhelmed and rely on local teachers to provide feedback rather than conduct on-site visits.

Higher Education Teacher Education suffers from constant disruption as policies are updated, modified, or instituted mid-semester or mid-program. Some of these changes are top-down, as Federal laws are enacted. Other changes appear to be whimsical or capricious, arising not from state statutes or federal law, but from local Higher Education administrators and faculty.

To refer back to my friend, she indicated to her middle-school placement adviser an interest in applying for teacher training workshops in inner city Chicago, New Orleans, and Albuquerque. She really wants the experience of working with inner-city youth. Several good schools, Stanford, Princeton, and Harvard, (I think we recognize these names) have teacher-training programs in these cities which allow students in teacher education programs across the United States to apply. Her adviser told her if she were to be accepted by any of these programs any teaching hours would not be valid and she would still be liable for the 200 practicum hours required by the program.

When she related this conversation to me, I was stunned. My friend applied, anyway, and was denied. Hypothetically, had she been accepted, she would have worked for 6-8 weeks with inner city youth as part of a program developed by Stanford, Harvard, or Princeton, yet a woman sitting in an office in rural Kentucky has the authority (and audacity) to deny those teaching hours, on the basis the experience is not applicable to rural Kentucky. Holy Sh*t! (As an aside, this person has since been removed from her position and replaced by a rational person.)

If you haven't watched Sir Kenneth Robinson, then, here, watch this:

I see problems in Education.

But, like I said at the onset, I could be wrong; probably am.

PAX

Business Model? We Don't Need No Business Model!

Few things raise my hackles more than irrational or illogical behavior. And, in this collection I also include my own behavior. Take for example the recent news of a student, Timothy Arnold, a University of Central Florida student, who developed an application. His application, UCouldFinish, helped students find courses with open seats. Armed with this knowledge, over 500 students found acceptable courses in which to enroll. In higher education, 500 students x 3 credit hours equals 1,500 credit hours. Now UCF charges $208 per credit hour (site). Doing some simple math...1,500 x $208 equals (make this easy: 15 x2 x1000) about $300,000 dollars. Hypothetically, Mr. Arnold helped UCF bring in $300,000 with his application.

Consulting the UCouldFinish web site, Timothy has been subjected to punishment for being so bold as to help his university improve the conditions of his fellow students and also helping improve the financial environment of his university. Mr. Arnold's application earned him 3 semesters of academic probation, a research paper on the management of MyUCF, and counseling on how to make good choices.

To throw some positive vibes on this debacle, the 3 semesters of probation is not a big deal. Timothy sounds like a smart guy. He will either make those semesters pass easily, or he will bid UCF adieu and find a more suitable uni to finish his education. My sense is a company, like Google, or Facebook, or Twitter will offer him a job. Writing a research paper on the IT on the UCF ERP system will undoubtedly require some research. He should need to speak with many IT folks, network analysts, programmers, and system admins to get a sense of the breadth and depth of the inner workings of the ERP system in order to understand the impact his application had upon UCF IT. All of his research will undoubtedly result in more experience dealing with systems, programming, and the entire ecosystem of higher ed IT, giving him even more insight into the trials and tribulations of systems administration. Thus, in writing the research paper, he could end up with even greater knowledge of how to exploit...er, augment educational IT systems.

In a broader sense, Timothy Arnold v. UCF illustrates a much more important and sobering issue in Higher Education. Traditional higher education, public & private colleges and universities, are being assaulted on numerous fronts. Set aside for a moment the Conservation/Right-wing/GOP gutting of education, in general. The literal attacks committed against Education by Republicans is well-documented and is a true source of concern. However, critical thinking requires us to ask, Why? Why is their such animosity against Education, especially Higher Education?

I submit one essential reason: Higher Education has become sclerotic, hard, calcified, resist to change and adapt, entrenched in a management mindset at least a century old. For traditional colleges and universities to not only remain relevant but to serve current and future educational needs, the Higher Education business model needs to evolve from the 19th century academic mindset into a a mindset capable of being nimble and adaptive to 21st century educational needs. If Higher Education had been more vigilant in adapting and evolving new business and academic models, these specious attacks would have no merit

A propose a number of remedies to address the improvement of our College and University business models. First, classes need to be able to be added & dropped as needed. Doing such will require some transcript flexibility. Department chairs and deans are best able to support student advising and transcript adjustment. ERP systems need to be able be adaptive enough to manage student academic records, as well.

Colleges and Universities must be allowed to leverage faculty, staff, and student expertise. Unquestionably and undeniably, colleges and universities must be open and receptive to using on-site knowledge, experience, and expertise to address the daily and long-term mission of the institution. As Timothy Arnold attempted, when a need is identified, such as the notification system Timothy developed, those needs should be immediately addressed. Students should be allowed to help design and implement CMS and help manage institutional web sites. Students should be allowed to help develop institutional applications which help the overall function of the institution. One of the greatest complaints new graduates have, and have always had, is that of experience, having none. Students assisting with all aspects of institutional management, planning, and IT will have experience upon graduation. Perhaps experience with Drupal, Joomla!, PHP, Python, WordPress, Javascript, HTML5, SQL and SQL Server, or Oracle. Graduating student would have experience in application development, design, implementation, and enhancement. A phenomenal example of such a team is the InfoGraphics Lab in the Department of Geography at the University of Oregon.

Online courses, for-private schools, and now the growing presence of massively open online courses (MOOC), with the movement of so much content into "the cloud" is going to push universities to evolve into something new. Those who do not evolve, who do not revolutionize their educational business model are going to slide away into obscurity.

Current business models and the closely related academic models will need to evolve into something else. Global economic forces change faster than seasons or global climate change predictions. Business, industry, and global commercial sectors need employees who can adapt to change and work within fluid environments. Industry needs nimble thinkers who can address current business trends yet also be able to act quickly and foresee changes in technology, consumer tastes, trends in raw materials and labor markets which are embedded in Globalization.

Of current concern is unemployment. As of this writing, 12.8 million people were unemployed. The national unemployment rate is 8.3%. Again, doing some quick math, 12.8 / 0.083 and we arrive at a labor force size of about 156 million Americans, which is about 50% of our population, and that is my "rule of thumb" for determining the size of any country's labor force (about 50% of population, give or take) (Source: BLS).

Also, of this writing there are about 3.8million open job postings. We can debate the accuracy of the number, I will grant that. But, hypothetically, let's say ...entertain me here... 3 million of those open jobs were filled by people from the 12.8 million group. Then, we would have only 9.8 million unemployed. Simple math gives us 9.8 / 156 which equals 6.3% unemployment (Source: BLS)

Now, 6.3% is not bad. Not great, but certainly better than +8%. The question then becomes, "Why are those jobs not being filled by people in the 12.8million group?"

I don't have an answer to that question. I know some factors include unwillingness to move to where the jobs are, the pay of those open jobs, and the experience gap between the unemployed group the experience those open jobs require.

Retraining & re-education can help fill some of those jobs. Re-education requires colleges and universities to be open, fair, and honest with themselves, and be open to new ideas, fail fast, fail often, and learn and grow from those experiences, and be ever-evolving. Self-assessment mandates interaction with business and industry to make sure graduates have both the education and experience necessary for those graduates to succeed.

Higher Education cannot be a stove-pipe themselves, or become educational "silos" immune to local, state, national, or international influences and catalysts. Those institutions who pay attention will succeed by their graduates. Those institutions who fail to adapt to 21st century educational changes and evolving business needs will falter and suffer under constant mis-identification of goals and mis-aligned "mission statements" and find themselves under-going continual identity crises which will do nothing but undermine institutional confidence at all levels.

Institutions of Higher Learning represent a bizarre dichotomy of work environments. On one hand, some of the most brilliant people on the planet are employed by them, and some of the most pedantic, too. Even the educated folks are routinely bound by limited vision and are what I might label as "novice learners" being unable to see past their own discipline, specialty area, or responsibility. Thus, the very institutions which were created to promote critical thinking and openness are just as poisoned as any other institution or corporation.

So, yes, my hackles get up when these institutions victimize innovation, stifle advancement, creativity, and stymy new ideas and concepts, and squash young, middle-aged, an older minds in favor of "tradition" and "that just not the way its done" mentalities.

I invite all rational and reasonable comments :)

PAX

Gamification of Higher Education

I can't stand cheating, academic dishonesty, and plagiarism. People who spend more time trying to figure out how to subvert an exam, cheat, plagiarize, or pay someone else to do their homework. Fail. Simply fail on your own merit. Contemplate what led to your failing grade and change your behavior. Not everyone can, should, or does deserve an "A." Get over yourself. Merely because you have a busy Life with two jobs, three kids, a mortgage, a lawn to mow, and you still want time for fishing, hunting, golf, or shoe shopping does not give you the right to snake your way through a class. If you cheat because you have a busy life, your life is the problem, not the course.

Academic dishonesty is not a victimless crime. First, you have essentially stolen a grade by committing fraud. You did not pay for any grade. Your tuition dollars were tendered in return for contracting with the college or university for them to provide the academic resources, the classroom, projector, and faculty for you to learn something, not for a grade. Thus, you have defrauded the college or university and also any student loan or grant organization who awarded you money. When your child cheats you can tell them not to; of course, you will be a hypocrit.

Honest students also have the potential of being victimized. Any course grade "adjustment," i.e. "curve," offered by an instructor has the potential of being affected by your dishonesty. Higher grades artificially inflate grades and taint any statistics generated which might benefit the class as a whole. And, as cheaters often work as a team, the effect can be much worse on honest student the more people cheat.

Academic dishonesty taints the department's reputation, the university, and you own degree. Degrees are often reputation-based.

"Oh, you went to Ivory Tower State University? They have a really good program."

On the other hand,

"We do not hire anyone from the University of Mordor. Programs there lack credibility and rigor and their students must cheat, receiving high grades yet have no useful skills or are marginally trainable. We've been burnt by students we have hired from there as they never seem to know what the hell they are doing."

In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a person referred to only as Shadow Scholar admitted to earning $60,000 in one year writing term papers. No wonder students today cannot write nor correctly process and analyze what they read. Someone else is doing the heavy lifting. Cut-and-paste operations in writing requires no thought. Summarizing requires a little more thought, but not much more. People simply do not understand eduation.

Another student, Bob Smith, anonymity protected by a psuedonym, is noted in the same article as being proud of his cheating. He never read a damn thing throughout his online course and spent less than an hour a week prepping for exams. By "prepping" I mean "figuring out how to cheat." Mr. Smith argues the lack of consideration given to cheating in the course means the university does not care if a student cheats or not. I suppose if Mr. Smith had to use a thumbprint scanner, and a webcam for facial recognition, and only be able to take the exam in a proctored environment, only then I guess would Mr. Smith believe the university was serious and academic integrity.

What bothers me is the idea which he has adopted: "If there are no measures to prevent me from cheating, lying, or stealing then it must be OK."

For U.S. students brought up with video games, attaining an education is little more than "Angry Birds" or "Farmville." Some students want to experience the gamut of education and immerse themselves within, like players of Skyrim. But, what about those players who cheat, who do not "pay their dues" so to speak and buy their World of Warcraft characters on Ebay yet cannot play worth a damn? Or, the players who take advantages of glitches to assassinate others players, or use cheats to attain "god-mode?" Most gamers have integrity and despise those who cut corners or cheat.

We live in an era where open attacks on Education, especially Higher Education, are frequent and common. Around the world, people both respect and admire U.S. education, at least Higher Education. Those sentiments are changing, however, as the U.S. Congress continues to defund academic research, higher education, and is increasingly dismissive of science and engineering. Compounding the diminishing respect of U.S. Higher Education are the increasing numbers of foreign students educated here who return to their home country and use their education to teach and train others. Countries whose populations are becoming more educated, Vietnam, India, China, Ghana, and Brazil are then able to achieve greater incomes allowing them to invest in education. A positive feedback loop is then established to continue educational progress.

Meanwhile, U.S. students, rather than work hard and honestly on their education, find themselves distracted by the opening of deer season, fishing seasons, shoe buying season, taking a cruise in the middle of the semester, video games, binge drinking, whatever-makes-me-feel-good-now-because-my-parents-have-been-too-indulgent-of-my-poor-behaviors.

Academic honesty policies are in place and well-posted. That should be enough. Society doesn't place police at every stop sign to ensure you stop, nor at every speed limit sign to prevent you from speeding, nor place police at every shopping market to prevent you from shoplifting. The absence of police does not give you the right to steal.

I tell my students a few details about cheating. First, you will never get a Letter of Recommendation from me if you cheat in my classes. Furthermore, faculty talk. If I find you have cheated in ANY OTHER COURSE, mine or not, I will not give you any recommendation. Additionally, most faculty will not give a dishonest student any recommendation, either. In small to medium-sized departments, a student branded as dishonest might as well change majors or go to another school. When the most any student has to prove competency in an area of study for a job is a Letter of Recommendation from faculty, the effects can greatly diminish the chances of getting a good job, or getting into graduate school.

I have frequently been interviewed by military security personnel, the FBI, and Special Investigators regarding students attempting to earn a security clearance. I am perfectly honest with investigators and will inform them of all relevant details pertaining to a student's integrity. Fortunately, all of my students who have chosen a line of working requiring a security clearance are ethical people.

Academic dishonesty may seem like nothing. Academic dishonesty is anything but. Cheaters set a terrible example for family, friends, children. Cheaters undermine institutional integrity. Cheaters undermine national academics and economic potency.

The same attitude of despising cheaters should carryover to education. We do not trust cheating spouses, cheating politicians, cheating police, or cheating athletes. Why should be trust students who gamify education by cheating?

PAX

The Monkeys of Typewriter Island

I write because I think. My thoughts need a form. I give them a form through the laborious machinations of word selection, ordering, and penning them on some hard- or soft copy media, following generations old rules.

My favorite author of all-time is Ray Bradbury. His prose is poetry. The meter, tone, tenor and lyrical nature of his writing captivated me early in my life. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke are my other literary gods; Bradbury will always remain the pinnacle of the trinity for me.

Reading is a passion of mine. As a youth, I would hide under my covers with a flashlight so as to prevent any light from spilling out under my door, giving away my late night foray into adventure. Another decent trick was to take clothes from my dresser and push them against the bottom of my door. I would read into the wee hours, through Royals baseball, and into the radio show which dealt mostly about UFOs, Bigfoot, and government conspiracies.

My father asks, "Why do you buy so many books? Why don't you just use the library?"

The library was my home away from home, growing up. Located beneath a grocery store in a shopping center three blocks from home, I would spend hours every day during summer vacation reading and wandering among the shelves. Little stickers on the binding would give goers a hint about the book; a magnifying glass was "mystery," a rocket ship meant "science fiction." Other stickers might have existed, those were the two I cared about. I would read my books, write the titles on a pre-lined form, and upon reaching 25 titles, I would turn the list in to the librarian and I would receive a free book from a selection of brand-new books arranged on a table near the check-out counter.

But, for me, the library also had a downside. I had to give the books back. Spending a day, or three, or a week, developing a relationship with the characters, and indirectly the author, and then having to give the book back felt appalling. Would you play with a puppy for two or three days, then return the puppy to the shelter? Some would, I imagine. Not me. Characters, themes, scenes, story arcs, and the energy the author placed into developing his or her fictional world was a relationship to me, albeit a very one-sided relationship.

For some, sure, reading is purely entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. I am no different. However, I also consider the time, effort, energy which a book has been imbued by the author. A book is not merely a pulp-based product containing letters and words arranged in clever ways. Well, actually some books are not much more than a collection of words which at first blush appear to be intelligently arranged yet upon further inspection lend credibility to the existence of The Monkeys of Typewriter Island. I think Typewriter Island might be part of the Self-Publishing Archipelago; being a geographer one might think my geography skills should be more attuned.

For some, those who don't read and their counterparts, those who don't write, writing is seen not simply as drudgery but as a form of torture. I'm pretty sure water-boarding of most Americans would be unnecessary:

"You have a choice: write a 3-pg essay on the Man vs. Nature elements of The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper, or water-boarding."

I'm pretty sure most college students would elect water-boarding.

In my college-level geography classes I pose the following essay question:

You are a technology entrepreneur and have been working out of your garage for the last 18 months developing a new technology. You wife and family have had enough, and thankfully, you now have some financial backing, i.e. venture capital, to relocate to more substantive environs. Given the nature of your efforts is technology, locate three cities in North America which could make a good home for your new technology company. Then, narrow your selection to one city. Explain your selection process using the 7 Traits of a Technology Hub as discussed in class."

Sometimes, the responses (which I have captured, errors and all, below) border on literary bankruptcy:

"I would either go to California or Texas or Florida. California would be a nice place to continue a business it has a high yeild to gain economic profit and so does Texas. Californica and Florida are located on the ocean so they would have easier shipping access for products. All three states for the most part have a high level of population. All three have about the same amount of rail way routes but since Florida is a smaller state it seems they would have more travel consumptions to other states. Florida and Taxas are smoother flatter states as to California has the rocky mountains making vehicle travel harder but if i had to place to continue the business i would settle in Miami Florida because it has the best of the most the features i mentioned."

"The three cities I choose were Atlanta, Philidelphia, and Dallas. Each of these cities are driving more than every and are continuously growning...One reason is beacuse the city offers tax incetives for new jobs created. Another reason is because there are colleges there. Which intern means, newly educated people looking for employment."

Frequently, I boggle at the presumed importance of barge traffic, river systems, and the need for unskilled labor in response to questions about technology-based businesses. While the importance of UPS and the USPS is without question highly important in the delivery of books to my doorstep, and the delivery of consumer electronics to Best Buy, Target, and Wal-mart is also highly desirable, I fail to see how Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, or Twitter might even remotely find barge traffic part of their business plan.

After reading about globalization, non-governmental organizations, broad issues of immigration, and the growing interconnectedness of our global societies, I pose another writing assignment.

After having read about the nature of Globalization, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and a number of societal issues and concerns, I want you to communicate your own personal geography. You drive through your town, the countryside, on your way to work, school, church, and now, with a little bit of training, you are hopefully more aware of the life going on the other side of your windshield. Describe your Personal Geography."

Think about your personal geography. Let your mind ferment some thoughts as you read these responses.

"I see geography at work all the time, especially what I was younger and we went on road trips. On those road trips we would drive through the mountains and they were so beautiful. There was so much definition it makes you wonder how they got to be that way. I have also been through the dessert. Even though there is really nothing out there to see but the sunset and how everything grows...It is amazing to realize that all this goes on and how it affects us in our everyday lives but also wiht geography...We can always count on our surroundings and our environment to always be there for us."

"In this section of studying its made known that peoples geography is much different than other peoples geography...someone who lives in the United States has total different geography than someone who lives in the Country of Asia, Australia, or Germany."

"In my everyday life i use geography in more of a younger way. For me being a Freshman college student I use geography for simple things. Like mapping out how to get to ____ from louisville, How to get around a mall without back tracking, and also how to use development to pick where i want to go to school at. Geography is not that big thing in my everyday life sense i am so young."

"The area around us is very unique, we have two large rivers that combine to make a larger area that formed into a larger lake because of a dam. Also to the east of us we have the appilation mountains that forms a location of intrest if your into high altitudes hiking or into snow sports. The demograhics have a major influces in the how you live to because the different age ranges of people means you cant just talk to people about local gossip if thier 80 years old and doesnt no about that."

These are actual responses from college students. College students, meaning these individuals have been passed along through our U.S. educational system, from kindergarten beyond high school. These people either graduated from high school or worked to earn a GED.

Reading and writing is fundamental to education. Reading provides us with examples of how are written language should appear, the form and function our language should assume. Reading helps our brain create imagery, trains our brains to transform symbols into meaning and then into images. I'm describing communication and I feel stupid doing so. Everyone should have basic fluency in reading and writing skills. U.S. citizens proclaim, "ya gotta speak English if ya want to live in this here country!" Yeah, well, apparently reading English and writing English isn't all that necessary, even for natural-born citizens.

Reading truly provides us with brain "food" for thought. Writing, on the other hand, helps us sow more brain "food," by helping us not only train our brains for thought but also aids us in communicating those ideas and notions to other people. Writing, to continue my agrarian-themed analogy, is pollen, seeds of thoughts, notions, ideas, and images which take root in and yield potentially yield luscious fruit. Or, fall lifeless in the desert of Dogma, awaiting for the literary equivalent of Climate Change, er, "Idea Warming," as in, "I'm warming to your idea of selling cupcakes door-to-door."

Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and an entire host of other countries cannot learn English fast enough. Many of my international students struggle with American English. Rightly so; American English is the 4th hardest language to learn, behind Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. I would throw in Korean, too.

Our American Education System cannot continue to dilute the importance of reading, math, and science. As a society, we will ultimately fail. Social fragmentation along income and educational lines will occur, and these ruptures could potentially fall along regional boundaries. The New England states do very well in school-aged spending, median family incomes, ACT scores, and overall academic achievement. The Southwest states of Arizona, New Mexico, along with Oklahoma do not fair well, and neither does Tennessee, Mississippi, or Louisiana.

I provide writing samples simply to illustrate efforts by recently enrolled students in Higher Education. These students have been passed along through Primary and Secondary Education, and now find themselves in Higher Education. As new adults, students often do not recognize they are now responsible for their own effort, not Mommy or Daddy, and they now have to engage their brains and use what they should have been taught in high school. So often, I am told, Standardized Testing rules the classroom, with little room for creativity. Additionally, with "blended" classrooms containing Special Education students through gifted, teachers are often forced to "teach to the middle" abandoning either end, or focusing on the time-consuming needs of the learning disabled to the detriment of other students. In the end, the students lose, and the loss permeates our society creating fractures in our economic and social systems about which I have previous posted.

I hold students accountable for their efforts. One cannot simply say, "that's what I was taught," or "I was't taught that." As an adult in Higher Education, a student has to bring an effort to the classroom and not simply be a respirator of oxygen anchoring a chair. However, I also want to say to administrators and drafters of previous education reform efforts, "thanks for making my life difficult and creating class after graduating class of adults who are barely literate and are unable to abide the rigors of college. Furthermore, you should be ashamed of what you have wrought upon these people, in molding them into people unprepared for Life outside of high school, and setting them up for failure. Only by their own graces will these students be able to correct the damage your policies have inflicted upon them."

Education is a fundamental right, not a privilege.

Educated People Damage Education

I grapple with the paradox of my post title daily. Think about those words. The Uneducated do not create or implement educational policy at any level. Degreed people do. "No Child Left Behind" was not developed by non-degreed folks, yet inarguably NCLB has been the worst "education reform" since President Reagan declared ketchup a vegetable.

When we argue about Educational Policy we are arguing with other supposed educated people about paths to follow which result in more educated adults. People with educations are then the problem, right? I do not mean to say "people with education degrees are the problem;" I mean people responsible for evaluating, analyzing, creating and implementing education policy are the problem.

The fact educated people are at the root of our educational problems bothers me greatly. Seriously. How can educated people, people with BA/BS degrees, perhaps Master's, or even Ph.D's, be responsible for damaging an educational system from which they are the product? The illogic of educated people damaging education baffles me.

Currently, Congress is debating continuation of low student loan interest rates [washpostlink]. Continuing low student loan interest rates should be a no-brainer and not worthy of debate. But, educated people argue with other educated people about the benefits and costs of student loans. Do these people remember their loans? Were they at all grateful for the loans? Do they understand the costs of college even at local community colleges and regional universities? Or, did opponents of student loans even have student loans? How did he/she pay for an education?

Watching C-Span, I am struck by the shear obtuseness of our Congresspeople. How soon they forget the benefits and experiences of their college life. Did he/she even pay attention? Did they really receive an education, or did he/she merely jump through the hoops of coursework and for their perseverance were awarded BA/BS degree? And, now, comfortable with their election - no, their 'elevation' to public office, are now confident in their role as a public policy leader.

In a recent Chronicle Review, a supplement to the Chronicle of Higher Education, dated March 2, 2012, professor Andrew Delbanco wrote "College At Risk." A wonderful, eloquent piece striking to the heart of the fate of Higher Education, as the Educated seek to push NCLB-type standardized testing into the hallowed halls of colleges and universities, potentially resulting in the newly graduated receiving less "learning."

How can the newly graduated be receiving less education?

Standardized testing is essentially a box. Faculty set "learning objectives" based on criteria determined either through in-house focus groups, or using a set of Federally-derived criteria. Then, faculty are obligated to teach to the criteria, assess students on their absorption of knowledge, and evaluate teaching modes and methods.

Nothing is wrong with evaluating teaching modes. Faculty should always be on the lookout for new, different, and interesting pedagogical tools. Teaching should be fun, interesting, enlightening, and focused on challenging students perceptions and tearing-down and building-up their knowledge.

Teaching-To-A-Test is nothing but teaching to a test. Assessments truly only test a student's ability to take an assessment. Standardized tests do not effectively evaluate a student's creativity, wisdom, or wit. Furthermore, the Real World rarely comes in standardized packages. People need to be able to synthesize a variety of data from which real world decisions are made. Teaching to a standardized test in no way can prepare a student for handling real world situations. Thus, a student can perform very well on standardized tests yet not be prepared for either college/university or life after high school/college/university. The words above are mine, my sentiments, but Dr. Delbanco pretty much says the same thing:

"...we need to keep in mind that standardized test-at least those that exist today-are simply incapable of measuring the qualities that should be the fruits of a true liberal arts education: creativity, wisdom, humility, and insight into ethical as well as empirical questions."

Dr. Delbanco makes many great points. I won't cover all here simply because I don't want to get myself in trouble with re-creating Chronicle of Higher Education material.

Dr. Delbanco states

"...there is mounting evidence the law [NCLB] has had little positive effect, while driving "soft" subjects such as art and music to the margins or out of the curriculum altogether.

Standardized test are major problems for a couple reasons. They do not adequately measure teaching or learning. Creativity fostering classes like art and music are eliminated. Another casualty from Standardized Testing is physical education. I remember a minimum of two recesses while in elementary school. I also had gym class. We learned games, tumbling, and general physical fitness. Many behavioral problems found in elementary have a simple solution - exercise. Yet, we have educated adults arguing against longer school days which would allow additional "soft" subjects and more exercise. Arts, music, and exercise have well-documented positive correlations with learning.

Why don't educated people recognize the damage they leave in their wake?

Dr. Delbanco may have an answer to my question.

"...student tend to arrive in college already largely formed in their habits and attitudes...preoccupied with the struggles of adulthood: finding or keeping a job, making or saving a marriage, doing right by their children."

Especially in the community college environment, with both kids straight from high school and adults back in school, Dr. Delbanco's statement is absolutely factual. Students often grouse about homework; even if reading a chapter of the course textbook is the only assignment, students complain the assignment is too much. Yes, a true story. I once had a student tell me she did not have time for the textbook reading assignment.

"I have 1,2,3 kids and I have to have my mother/babysitter/mother-in-law watch them while I'm in school. I have to keep my GPA up so I can keep my food stamps/health insurance. I work part-time, too, and I am active in church."

I return to the premise of my post. I see two problems: people who make educational policy are products of the institutions they are destroying, and two, those people with little more than BA/BS are not listening to how ridiculous their ideas are nor examining the downstream effects of their choices. In other words, they may not have measurable critical-thinking skills.

As we move more and more towards the precipice of Standardized Testing in Higher Education, critical-thinking skills developed from a truly liberal arts education will gradually evaporate. As more graduates of Higher Education Standardized Testing filter into public policy, fewer people who appreciate knowledge and wisdom will hold positions of power. Some people will be able to afford real liberal arts education, though. I envision a developing caste-like system of educated people: a large body of like-minded but intellectually stunted people representing the by-products of Standardized Testing, and a few people capable of analytical thought and intellectual pursuits, yet viewed as elitists and unrealistic.

My fears are already being realized, though. Attacks, mostly by the uneducated and the GOP, upon higher education and education, in general, are on the rise. States slash higher education budgets, hurting one of the few national economies which pays dividends, and for which the United States is currently respected. The respect of a U.S. education is changing, though. The density of U.S.-educated foreign nationals is increasing, and these educated people are returning to their home countries, thereby raising the local, regional, and national educational standards. While a U.S. diploma has instant cache abroad, the respect of the conferred U.S. degree is diminishing as the world looks on and witnesses the scuttling of the U.S. educational system by the blind, the ignorant, the fearful, and the uninspired.